청구이의
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
A notary public belonging to the Daejeon District Prosecutors' Office against the plaintiff C.
1. The reasoning of this Court is as follows, inasmuch as the relevant part of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, the underlying facts and the parties' arguments are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
[Supplementary Use] The fourth part of the first instance judgment "158" was changed to "178"
A. The lower court determined that the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 94,380,00 [143 (143 persons - 178 persons - 178 persons) x 660,000] pursuant to the above compensation agreement, to the effect that “the actual number of students is 178 persons,” and that “the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 94,380,000.”
every 2. Determination
A. A. On February 2015, the determination on the invalidity of the instant notarial deed was made on the grounds that the Plaintiff and the Defendant destroyed the instant notarial deed in the unanimous space, and there is no dispute between the parties, and according to the entries in the A’s No. 19, the Defendant was issued a re-issuance of the instant notarial deed on the grounds of loss on or around July 29, 2016.
Furthermore, each statement of evidence Nos. 6 and 16, as to whether the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to invalidate the notarial deed of this case, is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
In other words, according to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the defendant is recognized as having applied for a compulsory auction on August 12, 2016, immediately after the due date stated in the notarial deed of this case ( July 31, 2016). In light of the defendant's actions immediately after the due date stated in the notarial deed of this case, it is not just just because there was a dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant, but it is difficult to recognize that the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to invalidate the notarial deed of this case by destroying the notarial deed of this case.
Therefore, the above part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.
B. 1 won of judgment as to the number of original students, and whether the defendant settled the number of original students, as stated in subparagraph 3-1, the plaintiff and the defendant are as stated in subparagraph 3-1.